[D&D 4.0] System Doesn't Matter

[zakarntson]

Here's a quote from the latest D&D Design & Development article (registration required):
Sure, a DM can decide for dramatic reasons that a notable NPC or monster might linger on after being defeated. Maybe a dying enemy survives to deliver a final warning or curse before expiring, or at the end of a fight the PCs discover a bloody trail leading

Comments

[counterfeitfake]

I dunno about all this righteous indignation, it happens in video games all the time. Besides, usually the PCs don't really know exactly the criteria for killing the big bad guys, do they?

[zakarntson]

That's a good point. Let me ruminate on this and get back to you. I hope I didn't sound too angry, since I know a ton of groups are happy with the kind of play I deplored above. At least, I hope they're happy, because I'm pretty sure that's how a lot of D&D groups operate.

[greyorm]

I was thinking it might have to do with the fact that in a computer game, the game can't decide to cheat, and neither can the player...rather, that video games are "passive" (pre-constructed) stories, not "active" (emerging?/un-directed?/open?) stories like RPGs.

Or, perhaps, it has to do with this: in a tabletop game, either party can cheat, but only the GM can get away with it without group support or fear of retribution/being over-ruled.

That is, the players almost never get to say, "Nope, I claim story privilege, so my guys lives," or more-to-the-point, "I alter/supercede the rules in this instance to say THIS happens instead for story/dramatic reasons."

That isn't fair in any manner I can see, even if the GM is given free-reign to ignore rules for dramatic reasons. Why him alone if drama/story is important? Isn't everyone's input into the state of the story/drama important and valid?

[counterfeitfake]

I think it's cool the way you want to run your games. I just don't think the other way Zak quoted is so awful either. They're both different approaches but I could see myself having fun in either framework. What's most important is that nobody is an ass, right? If the GM is an ass and makes an adversarial relationship with the players, it's a problem no matter what, right? But I think I have no real problem with a good storyteller taking liberties to involve me in the story he wants to tell.

It's not like I'm a serious RPGer, though...

[zakarntson]

Take this response and my response to greyorm above. So long as everyone's having fun, there you go, no issue. The importance is that a group, if even one member isn't having fun, is failing the "mandate of fun." (This may always include disbanding or changing the group) They need to nail down the meta-game stuff ASAP. The tricky part to all this is making sure that everyone at the table agrees on what does and doesn't make the GM an ass. Too often this is an implicit agreement which causes trouble down the line during play when, as it turns out, there's differing opinions. The easiest way is to nail the GM down with visible rules all participants can follow.

Stating in a rules-related article on hit points that the GM can always fudge things for drama is an implicit endorsement of one method. Does this mean the D&D 4.0 DM's guide will, in its "how to DM" section, say "drama over rules?" I hope not, though it's what often happens. I'd love to see a discussion of the social contract. Make sure everyone's expectations are laid out

[greyorm]

That's cool, and I can understand that, but I don't think I'd ever be comfortable playing a tabletop RPG that way again